Jrista, the noise in your cropped picture is godawful, it made me vomit...keep up the good work!

LOL, the picture of the Owl is not mine, it was taken by Andy Rouse, a well-known and respected wildlife photographer around the world. Also, don't forget, that photo is ISO 16,000! Not 1600, but sixteen thousand. Also keep in mind that it is clean luminance noise...no chroma in sight. The photo had ZERO noise reduction (zero post-processing at all, as far as I know). With nothing but LR4, I could clean that photo up such that it looked half as noisy or less, without any detrimental softening.

It could probably be printed it at 17x20 as well, and I bet it would look great.

Here is the full image, and a 50% crop:

Admittedly, these are web size shots from a professional photographer with the best gear imaginable...but still, ISO 16000! I don't think anyone even dreamed they could get a shot like that at ISO 6400 four years ago, let alone at ISO 16000. If I downscale my 7D images to the same size (which is also 18mp), a shot at ISO 1600 MIGHT look this good...probably a bit softer. At ISO 3200 I could definitely see the noise at this size. At ISO 6400, even at web size the image would probably be unusable (assuming they were taken in the same light as Andy Rouse took his photos of this owl.) So, while the noise may seem like S___ at 100% crop...it is at least as good as if not better than 1/10th the ISO on a 7D.

There is no verification anymore of pro status. You just answer a few questions. The rest is based on a point system and depends on how much Canon stuff you own. If you have enough for Gold status you can borrow equipment. Gold is 100.00 a year and Platinum is 500.00 a year.

CPS. This isn't entirely true, though it may be in certain areas. The requirements for CPS, and especially their verification system, varies per country (at least in terms of how they enforce it etc). I know where I am, they definitely wanted proof of pro status. I have had medical examinations that were less painful!!

There is no verification anymore of pro status. You just answer a few questions. The rest is based on a point system and depends on how much Canon stuff you own. If you have enough for Gold status you can borrow equipment. Gold is 100.00 a year and Platinum is 500.00 a year.

CPS. This isn't entirely true, though it may be in certain areas. The requirements for CPS, and especially their verification system, varies per country (at least in terms of how they enforce it etc). I know where I am, they definitely wanted proof of pro status. I have had medical examinations that were less painful!!

There is no point speculating in this thread about a product that still is only a rumor. Therefore it has no basis for comparison. The topic was a 1DX vs 5diii comparison. Plenty of other threads discussing vaporware.

Though I will say if or when the 7DII is released I will be one of the first in line for a CPS eval.

Jrista, awesome owl pic...thanks for sharing it here...I want to shoot pics at least 80% that good! Wow, ISO 16,000...unbelievable! Frankly I could clean that image such that it could be printed at 24x36...with just ACR and CS5...

I want to pet that owl, and teach it not to be afraid of numbers higher than 1000...but I reckon it would prefer to peck me to death!

Btw, one time I was out for a run in my front field, at night...and an owl flew right over my head...I never heard a sound...but the sight...scared the $tuff out of me...They truely make no sound at all in flight.

Jrista, awesome owl pic...thanks for sharing it here...I want to shoot pics at least 80% that good! Wow, ISO 16,000...unbelievable! Frankly I could clean that image such that it could be printed at 24x36...with just ACR and CS5...

Haha, yeah...I wish I could take photos HALF that good. A big part of it is having the gear...my 7D and 100-400 do ok...but they are definitely imposing a limit on what I can achieve in difficult scenarios.

Two shots using the 5DIII and 1DX. Both shot at ISO 1000. Both using a 600mm F4 IS with 1.4xIII extender. Both days were taken with complete overcast against a less than pleasing sky...Normally I would pass on any attempts in this condition but it makes for good comparisons in bad lighting. No post filters except 25 sharpness on both from the RAW files. 5DIII was at f/8 and 1DX was at F/10.

BE8 is the 1DXNL7 is the 5DIII

Note that the 5DIII has smaller grain pattern than the 1DX due to pixel density. Chroma noise is about the same, I think maybe less with the 5dIII but I could be persuaded that it's the same. For those that say the 1DX has no chroma noise you are wrong. It may have less at ISO 25000 but you cant say it has none. Post with CS5 we can process out chroma noise pretty much at all ISO levels with both cameras.

Two shots using the 5DIII and 1DX. Both shot at ISO 1000. Both using a 600mm F4 IS with 1.4xIII extender. Both days were taken with complete overcast against a less than pleasing sky...Normally I would pass on any attempts in this condition but it makes for good comparisons in bad lighting. No post filters except 25 sharpness on both from the RAW files. 5DIII was at f/8 and 1DX was at F/10.

BE8 is the 1DXNL7 is the 5DIII

Note that the 5DIII has smaller grain pattern than the 1DX due to pixel density. Chroma noise is about the same, I think maybe less with the 5dIII but I could be persuaded that it's the same. For those that say the 1DX has no chroma noise you are wrong. It may have less at ISO 25000 but you cant say it has none. Post with CS5 we can process out chroma noise pretty much at all ISO levels with both cameras.

Crops are 100% at 300dpi

(FYI, dpi only matters for print. On screen, you only have image dimensions in pixels and the PPI of the screen. It really wouldn't matter what dpi setting you used, on my screen it will always display at 103ppi. The average desktop screen these days has around 96ppi, most phone screens are 250-330ppi, and most tablets are 140-250ppi. People will see the image at the resolution of their device, regardless of what setting you choose when exporting. If you want everyone to see it at certain dimensions, there really isn't any way via the web, although I would imagine that if we actually could see those crops at 300ppi (my Lumia has a 336ppi resolution), they would look far less noisy than they do.)

Any chance you could post screenshots of the original histograms for each of those photos (without any post-process edits)? Given how much noise you have in those shots, and given the overall tone, I'd wager that a higher ISO setting with a greater amount of ETTR would produce better results from both cameras. I recently read some interesting info on exposure from one of my favorite bird photographers...Art Morris, who is a staunch advocate of ALWAYS exposing such that the rightmost ends of the histogram end up half way into the rightmost vertical box on the histogram display. Since I started doing that, my photos have been less noisy after post-process exposure correction (which, actually, tends to be minimal most of the time). Given what I've learned the last several months with my 7D, I would be willing to bet both the 5D III and 1D X could produce less noisy exposures for the same images you posted if you used both a higher ISO setting, and dropped the right-hand end of the histogram half way into the rightmost box.

It may not seem like "getting the exposure right in-camera", and if one was using film it would indeed be an entirely incorrect way to expose. But to maximize the potential of digital equipment, we have to think about it and use it differently than we think about and use film. I'm a staunch believer of ETTR, or expose to the right, when using modern digital cameras, and in my experience it does result in better dynamic range and noise performance out of any digital camera.

For digital I agree with jrista. I always overexpose most of my shots and then when I bring them down in post, there is a lot less noise vs. going the other way. I agree, for film, not the way to go, but it's a trick I learned and take advantage of with digital. Most of my outdoor sports photos are at least +2/3 to +1 2/3 EV.

Yes I agree. These are not the best exposed images. As I said the lighting was awful and the shot with the 5DIII it had just started sleeting. It was overexposed by about 2 stops already. The 1DX was exposed about 1 stop over. I tried to find a couple of shots that were challenging in comparison.

Two shots using the 5DIII and 1DX. Both shot at ISO 1000. Both using a 600mm F4 IS with 1.4xIII extender. Both days were taken with complete overcast against a less than pleasing sky...Normally I would pass on any attempts in this condition but it makes for good comparisons in bad lighting. No post filters except 25 sharpness on both from the RAW files. 5DIII was at f/8 and 1DX was at F/10.

BE8 is the 1DXNL7 is the 5DIII

Note that the 5DIII has smaller grain pattern than the 1DX due to pixel density. Chroma noise is about the same, I think maybe less with the 5dIII but I could be persuaded that it's the same. For those that say the 1DX has no chroma noise you are wrong. It may have less at ISO 25000 but you cant say it has none. Post with CS5 we can process out chroma noise pretty much at all ISO levels with both cameras.

Crops are 100% at 300dpi

(FYI, dpi only matters for print. On screen, you only have image dimensions in pixels and the PPI of the screen. It really wouldn't matter what dpi setting you used, on my screen it will always display at 103ppi. The average desktop screen these days has around 96ppi, most phone screens are 250-330ppi, and most tablets are 140-250ppi. People will see the image at the resolution of their device, regardless of what setting you choose when exporting. If you want everyone to see it at certain dimensions, there really isn't any way via the web, although I would imagine that if we actually could see those crops at 300ppi (my Lumia has a 336ppi resolution), they would look far less noisy than they do.)

Any chance you could post screenshots of the original histograms for each of those photos (without any post-process edits)? Given how much noise you have in those shots, and given the overall tone, I'd wager that a higher ISO setting with a greater amount of ETTR would produce better results from both cameras. I recently read some interesting info on exposure from one of my favorite bird photographers...Art Morris, who is a staunch advocate of ALWAYS exposing such that the rightmost ends of the histogram end up half way into the rightmost vertical box on the histogram display. Since I started doing that, my photos have been less noisy after post-process exposure correction (which, actually, tends to be minimal most of the time). Given what I've learned the last several months with my 7D, I would be willing to bet both the 5D III and 1D X could produce less noisy exposures for the same images you posted if you used both a higher ISO setting, and dropped the right-hand end of the histogram half way into the rightmost box.

It may not seem like "getting the exposure right in-camera", and if one was using film it would indeed be an entirely incorrect way to expose. But to maximize the potential of digital equipment, we have to think about it and use it differently than we think about and use film. I'm a staunch believer of ETTR, or expose to the right, when using modern digital cameras, and in my experience it does result in better dynamic range and noise performance out of any digital camera.

For digital I agree with jrista. I always overexpose most of my shots and then when I bring them down in post, there is a lot less noise vs. going the other way. I agree, for film, not the way to go, but it's a trick I learned and take advantage of with digital. Most of my outdoor sports photos are at least +2/3 to +1 2/3 EV.

For snow sports I go -1/3 to -1 if it is a bright day. Overcast or snowing I could not agree more that over is better (under can make for some very very cool B&W)!

Certain water sports as well like kayaking benefit from your method too as the water can show up very dark and get a bit noisy.

Problem with underexposing with snow is that it then has a gray tint, which you can fix in post I agree, so no big deal. At weddings I'd always shoot +1EV for the bride's dress to make it exactly white (with proper WB of course). With RAW now though, all that can be done if you don't get it right in cam.

EastWind, it's a tough world out there! I feel your pain with dark/light and mixed lighting scenes. I've battled that all winter. You'd think you could avoid it in outdoor sports, but not when the university schedules soccer games at 1pm in early September! You gotta just do the best you can.

Watch your 1DX metering. Mine both are too dark relative to my 5D3 and I had to set base AE up to 5/8 instead of 0 EV! I consulted with a few other 1DX owners and they had the same result. So you do have to watch that, as even metering is all relative.